Ch-Ch-changes!

After last weekend, it appears that Barack Obama is leading in the polls. And I completely understand the reason why...he stands for CHANGE! And who would not want change, anyway? As Irina said to me in chat,

You want change? Go to the supermarket!

Anyway, people seem to like to get change. They like the feel of it jingling in their wallets. And Barack Obama stands for CHANGE more than any candidate ever did in the history of the world...so you should all vote for CHANGE!

As you can see, Obama really stands for CHANGE! The signs clearly state as such in the background!

And yet...I wonder...does Obama stand for change more than the other candidates in the 2008 elections? I fear...I have a difficult time deciding...who best stands for CHANGE??

Culture for All readers...I ask you...can you please help me figure out this difficult question...which of the candidates best stands for CHANGE? It is the decisive question which must be answered in this election!

UPDATE: Stephen Colbert (Note he spells his name with a 'ph' and not a 'v') and South Park also noticed the curious addiction certain politicians have to 'change' a few months back. Must see video!

Super Tuesday Analysis

So today is the big day...Super Tuesday. I already wrote my predictions for the election right here.

I shall confess something today: I am not voting! I am a registered Democrat, and frankly the choice between Hillary and Obama is so horrifying, I have exercised my right not to vote. Evidently in New York State, delegates are proportionately allocated, so Obama is a threat in NYS. The whole system is nonsensical. I believe that all states should allocate delegates proportionately, or no states. Doing it in the haphazard way we do things is so counterintuitive, it is crazy! Speaking of crazy, it makes no sense that somehow if you live in one state, you vote before another state and have a bigger say than someone else who is supposedly an 'equal citizen' in the same country. All this is an insult to the 'one man, one vote' formula that supposedly this nation claims to stand for. And do not get me started on electors!

But anyway.

One thing people do not realize is the impact of foreign policy advisers on presidents. And so with that in mind, here is a link to the foreign policy advisers of the remaining candidates.

THOUGHTS: It is horrifying to think of Robert Malley and Samantha Power (Obama's advisers) have positions of power. They are well known anti-Zionists. With that said, McCain's choice of advisers is also troubling, notably Brent Scowcroft, he of the Iraq Study Group. I know little of Romney's advisers, except for Dan Senor, who I know is very strong on Iran. With that said, McCain has taken strong foreign policy positions. See them here.

What will become of any of these when they are in office? I do not know. It is easy to fall into the State Department malaise. If a Republican is chosen as president, I most certainly hope they do not fall pray to the State Department vapors that evidently has lately taken ove Bush. And more than ever, I hope the person for the job has the will and knowhow to fight Global Jihad.

Only time will tell what will happen.

The 2008 US Election

I know this blog has really not discussed the US presidential election, so here goes nothing...

I predict that Hillary will win the election, which is something I predicted in the year 2000. (that she would win in 2008)

This means 24 years straight (at minimum) of presidents related to each other.

Ultimately, I think it will be Hillary v. either Romney or McCain. Anyway, I think Hillary will win, and then the country will be having that morning after hangover, wondering "what did we do??"

As far as the nominees go...there are many bad choices, but there are "bad" and "worse" choices.

The three worst choices - by far - are Kucinich, Ron Paul, and Mike Gravel.

Kucinich might literally be a traitor to the American nation, and under different times would be charged for treason under the Logan Act. He went to Syria and met with Assad privately, then went onto Syrian state TV, called Assad, a murderous tyrant who presides over a regime that tortured and killed a friend of mine's cousin - a 'man of peace,' and then proceeded to denounce Bush to America's (not just Bush's) enemies. On Syrian state TV. Disgusting. (see the video evidence of this here, if you have the stomach for it) The only saving grace of this man is he has a hot wife.

Mike Gravel worked with an ex-friend of mine (qrswave) who literally supports terrorism. She was a contributor to his campaign, until the fact that she was made him look bad. (see evidence here) Pathetic.

Ron Paul's solutions to the world's problems is to dig America's head in the sand and act as an isolationist. Oh yeah, and he is linked with Neonazis and 9/11 "Troothers." (LGF catalogues that all quite well)

So that's what I think. I predict Hillary will win, and while I do not support her, I guess she is not as bad as those three nutcases.

Regardless, this election is like a side show. I was just recently in Europe, and tried to explain the electoral college to PM and Steven, and they were shocked and flabbergasted.